User talk:Kleinerziegler

Introduction to contentious topics
Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Please note that the 30 days/500 edits restriction applies to community processes on talk pages -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

November 2023
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. -- Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed&#93; (they&#124;xe&#124;she) 02:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Unblock

 * If I could offer a comment here, I'd have to suggest that regardless of what definition one applied, describing a candidate as 'a student' rather than 'a graduate student' does not even remotely constitute electoral fraud. If it did, any negative comment made anywhere about any candidate would likewise constitute 'fraud', which would be utterly absurd, and contrary to democratic process, which quite properly involves robust scrutiny of the merits of candidates. Wikipedia strives to be neutral (per the policy laid out in WP:NPOV rather than according to some imaginary abstract absolute neutrality), but intentional deviations from that (if they actually had taken place, which seems questionable) are matters for internal discussion, and should not be presented as some sort of attack on democracy itself. That is nonsensical hyperbole, and has no place on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

As I already said, I will not assume bad faith again. To be clear: I am sorry, and will try to not be hyperbolic.

My concern originated from that I had put effort into giving each candidate a fair background summary of a similar standard to each other, and erasing qualifications for some candidates but not others did not seem right:

The Sustainable candidate had the following information erased:
 * Her Indigenous ancestry (which is part of her platform)
 * Her experience in Environmental studies
 * Her level of education, being a grad student

The Independent Ian Cook candidate had the following information erased:
 * That he is a small business owner (replaced with 'Former businessman'). How insulting when his business is still trading in QLD, and "Small business" carries a certain amount of pride.

The Liberal candidate:
 * His experience in a working on public policy directly for the Leader of the Opposition, which is a very prestigious role.

The Socialist candidate:
 * Previous experience from running as a candidate in Thomastown

The Green candidate:
 * Her experience as a Health professional

The Labor candidate:
 * Her experience as a Clinical psychologist

Independent Tina Theodossopoulou:
 * A little bit of information about her how to vote card as finding background information about her online was so difficult to find

Animal Justice candidate:
 * Her experience in holding high positions within the Animal Justice party
 * Her experience in grassroots community activism in the neighbouring city
 * Her experience being in the public sector

I just think that Sustainable was the most egregious because the only word left was "student" with nothing else to meaningfully fill their background info, not to mention that her experience as an Indigenous person who is spiritually and physically connected to the natural environment was core to her platform.

--Kleinerziegler (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

To add. I don't think that this block serves any purpose as set by the criteria in the Blocking_policy. There is no immediate threat to any disruptive editing or behaviour against other users. There were no legal threats to begin with (and therefore are not outstanding). Blocking is not meant to be punative. If you have doubts about my sincerity, well that would be very disappoiting and you should assume good faith unless there is anything to suggest otherwise (as you have told me to do), but even still I should still be eligible for a 2nd chance.

Sorry if I come across the wrong way, I am very autistic. --Kleinerziegler (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC)


 * It isn't semantics, bans and blocks are entirely different. You are not banned, and it is not "permanent" which suggests it can never be removed. You don't have to edit an article on a designated contentious topic to contribute about it- editing talk pages counts.  There is no "tribunal" in matters like this; the Arbitration Committee only hears the most serious issues. As you have already done, you have made a new request for someone else to review, which is what is supposed to happen. 331dot (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * My contributions to the Talk page were started before the page was even officially designated as contentious, my contributions were not contentious, and even though it is indeed a contentious topic, that should not confer a negative judgement about me just for participating unless there was something defective about those contributions.
 * I was entitled to participate at the time that I started making those contributions, and then the rules changed mid-way, and so I stopped. That is not fair to judge me on this.
 * Why does it even make a difference if I edit what you deem are "contentious topic areas". I know what assuming good faith means. I am just going to assume good faith from now on - even if I really think it is bad faith, I will just treat it as if it were good faith anyways. Pretty easy.
 * A bit of unsolicited feedback - I am disappointed that you didn't even ask questions or give me a chance to reply before you made your decision. and that is why I am surprised by the lack of process in sorting out these "indefinite unblock requests" (or whatever you want to call them) given that Wikipedia already has so many policies and procedures. For any typical user, this is far too much effort, and really leaves a bad taste in my mouth about how Wikipedia treats new users who want to make a positive contribution to the site. Kleinerziegler (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Unblock discussion
Looks like WP:TOPICBANs for Arab–Israeli conflict and Australian politics are in order? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't understand, I didn't even make any contributions towards any Arab Israeli content or for any 'side'. I only made a suggestion for any info box in a talk page.
 * As far as Australian Politics goes, yes, I have made contributions, and I had made the mistake of assuming bad faith about another editor when they overwrote much of my content at the 11th hour and I put in a complaint, which was then turned against me. I have apologised and promised not to do anything like that again. Kleinerziegler (talk) 07:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)